From June 25:
All,
I was reading some posts from the Arendt Center and came across this one, written by Roger Berkowitz in 2012. It's about education -- loving the world enough to lead students into the world, to care for the world, to refresh it.
I found it lovely (for lack of a less redundant adjective), so wanted to share:
Link to blog post: http://www.hannaharendtcenter.org/?p=7983
Quote from Arendt (The Crisis in Education): "Education is the point at which we decide whether we love the world enough to assume responsibility for it and by the same token save it from that ruin which, except for renewal, except for the coming of the new and young, would be inevitable."
See you all soon!
Suzie
From Darryl:
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing Arendt's quote regarding education! It offers inspiration and a re-reminder (at times, much needed (for me)) with regard to why teaching matters. I love Berkowitz's additional exposition, with respect to a teacher role - in essence, a clarification/reminder of best practices coupled with the potential empowerment to be found in spaces of authentic intellectual endeavor/learning: "A teacher must not cross the line and tell the student what to do about the world, for that is the right of the student himself. All the teacher can and should do is prepare students for such a decision, by leading them into an existing world and offering them examples of those who, through freedom and constraint, have throughout history worked to renew and re-inspire our common world" (Berkowitz 2012).
From Liz:
ReplyDeleteI'm used to the role of teacher and not taking an opinion. This I need to work on. I think it may be too controversial but I'd like to see if there is a range of opinions among us about the Supreme Court decision or other cases that come up-- and if everyone does have the same opinion to unpack their thinking of why it's wrong. How did you arrive at that decision? Is there anyone who sees the verdict differently? Then that leads to the question is it valid to judge people from history who are not our peers with our values? I believe it is but I think it's interesting to consider. Im curious about how it seems that everyone assumes everyone agrees that this is horrible. This then might be that universal morality. However, am I then going to be a traitor is I ask to see if there are varied responses? Is it important for us humans to all see this a horrible and have a shared idea of right and wrong OR is it important to each find our own answer and have space to find it? Where do we draw the line between giving people space and saying this is wrong and everyone knows it: it's so terrible that it's not up for debate? Just my thoughts.
Original Post from Mike (which started the discussion):
DeleteHere is an excerpt from the profoundly disturbing SC opinion from Justice Holmes regarding United States attitudes toward sterilization which was mentioned in class today:
It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such
by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S.11. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.[p208] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/274/200
_____________________________________
Response (mine):
Wow! Talk about the power of language --- and the disturbing nature of "normative values" which, presumably are reflected in Justice Holmes' interpretative analysis of precedent (with respect to the parameter/meaning/intent of the 14th amendment). To me, this raises anew the question with which I was grappling in class: How can justice (punishment, specifically) provide a rebirth to the "moral order" of society, when that "moral order" appears to be temporally located within normative values? Arendt points to the ways in which the "members of respectable society, who had not been touched by the intellectual and moral upheaval in the early stages of the Nazi period ... were the first to yield. They simply exchanged one system of values for another" (Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship 44). The Holmes' excerpt suggests a consistency in societal values reflected within the law, rather than an "exchange" of values, pursuant to shifting ideas of right
and wrong. Yet today, we look with dismay and disbelief (perhaps?) at how a democratic system of justice could reflect such seemingly immoral ideas.
This leaves me wondering, how is it possible to establish a "universal notion of morality" against which "humanity" (and "crimes against humanity") can be defined? How can justice be achieved through punishment for which, "the very earth cries out for vengeance [when] a "great crime offends nature" and "violates a natural harmony, which only retribution can restore" (Eichmann 277).
From Kathy:
ReplyDeleteJudgment is an important and central issue to discuss.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Liz. When does the assumption of consensus preclude the exploration of thinking itself?
And since we are talking today about the controversy surrounding the EiJ book, it is appropriate to raise the question of interpretation and how judgments--about the past or the present--are reached.
From Nina:
ReplyDeleteBased on what we're reading, i'm getting a sense that there is an agreed upon idea of what is evil. I like how de Beauvoir says in "Eye for an Eye" that evil is treating humans as objects. In answer to the question, "Then that leads to the question is it valid to judge people from history who are not our peers with our values?" I think some people may think relativistically and excuse such thinking as a sign of the times. I think it's important to judge based on our morals today. Morals evolve. The massacre of Tainos or African-American enslavement was seen as normal and acceptable by some at that time but I think the majority of people today would judge differently. Arendt says in "Personal Responsibility" that "For behind the unwillingness to judge lurks the suspicion that no one is a free agent." And again I go back to what Arendt said in "Personal Responsibility," "How can we tell right from wrong, independent of knowledge of the law?"
From Kat:
ReplyDeleteAllow me to draw some parallels.
We may recall that many northerners considered slavery to be unpleasant and repugnance, but not enough to do something about it -- at least not until a critical time in the late 1850s. Also I'm remembering how Martin Luther King Jr. identified moderate white liberals as worse than the racists because they should have known better and yet did nothing.